Massachusetts' highest court will now decide if Aaron Hernandez murder conviction is reinstated

Posted Nov 8, 2018

Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez sits at the defense table Monday, March 27, 2017, during his trial in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston. Hernandez is on trial for the July 2012 killings of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado who he encountered in a Boston nightclub. The former NFL football player is already serving a life sentence in the 2013 killing of semi-professional football player Odin Lloyd. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool) (Pat Greenhouse)

Will Aaron Hernandez be remembered as a killer or an innocent man because of a legal loophole?

Massachusetts' highest court began to consider Thursday whether to end the long-standing legal practice that "wipes out" a person's conviction if the defendant dies before all appeals are exhausted.

The legal principle known by the Latin phrase "ab initio," came under scrutiny last year when Hernandez, a former New England Patriots star and convicted killer, was found dead in his prison cell. Hernandez, 27, was found guilty in 2015 of killing semi-professional football player Odin Lloyd. His suicide came days after he was acquitted of most charges in a separate double-murder case.

A judge threw out Hernandez's conviction after his death, citing the legal principle that holds that it's unfair to keep a conviction in place before a defendant had a chance to clear their names on appeal.

Inside the packed courtroom on Thursday morning about 50 reporters, law students, and spectators listened as Bristol County District Attorney Thomas Quinn argued that vacating Aaron Hernandez's murder conviction is "fundamentally unfair."

"We're here because he was convicted," Quinn told the justices. "To just snap your fingers and have it go away is not fair."

Quinn said he favors the decision in Surland v. the State of Maryland, a case that would allow an appeal to continue through Hernandez's estate.

Lawyer John Thompson, who said he was representing "the spirit of Aaron Hernandez," said this would be unfair as the defendant - a critical part of any case - is dead, and cannot provide context or help to attorneys to properly appeal his case.

"There is no defendant in this case....this has the effect of finalizing a judgment that wasn't finalized," Thompson argued.

He said that the characterization that vacating the charges would make it as though the trial and verdict never happened was disingenuous.

"The docket will show all these things happened," he said. "They are right there on the record."

Justice Scott L. Kafker seemed to favor an Alabama case, State v. Wheat, that would uphold the convictions but note in the criminal docket that Hernandez died, preventing the proper appeal process.

"It would reflect reality," Kafker said while vacating the conviction would be fictitious, he said.

Quinn spoke to reporters after the hearing. He said while it is not the easiest option, he'd like to see the appeal continue, even without Hernandez.

"A jury who represents the people spoke and said he is guilty the presumption of innocence is gone. Now he has a right to appeal. And I'm not minimizing that but it shouldn't trump, so to speak, everyone else's rights," Quinn said. "Those rights of victims, the emotional toll, the right to be able to rely on a verdict of the people that says that person is guilty who murdered their loved one are important."

The justices did not issue a ruling Thursday but are expected to by the end of the year, according to the Associated Press.